Perhaps the most significant change to the A201-2017 is the inclusion of a comprehensive insurance exhibit. Prior to the inclusion of the insurance exhibit in the 2017 update, parties to an AIA construction contract would often draft a separate insurance exhibit or rider that was reviewed and approved by their insurance agents. The new standard form insurance exhibit, which becomes Exhibit A to a comprehensive owner-contractor agreement, alleviates the need to create a separate exhibit from scratch.

The new insurance exhibit uses a “check-box” list of insurance requirements that the owner and contractor can use to allocate insurance requirements for the project. Because the insurance provisions are set forth in the standard exhibit, the parties can reduce their reliance on their insurance professionals to negotiate and approve the insurance requirements for a project. The insurance exhibit is used with the 201 and incorporated into any contract using the A101, A102, or A103. It is not incorporated into the simplified A104 or A105.

W Mason is an partner with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP. W practices in Fox Rothschild’s Litigation department in West Palm Beach, Florida. W is Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar Association. W focuses his practice on construction and commercial litigation throughout Florida. You can reach W at (561) 804-4432 or wmason@foxrothschild.com.

In the case of Mantiply v. Horne (In re Horne), 876 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) the Eleventh Circuit decided an issue of first impression in the Circuit: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from the violation of the automatic stay and in defending the damages award on appeal.

The stay violator argued on appeal that the debtors were not entitled to appellate fees as a matter of law under Section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code because the statute only provides for mandatory fees for damages and attorneys’ fees incurred in ending a stay violation, not incurred in pursuing a damages award nor fees incurred in defending a damages award on appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the stay violator and held that Section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically departs from the American Rule and authorizes costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the debtor in ending a willful violation of an automatic stay, prosecuting a damages violation, and defending those judgements on appeal.

Specifically, the Court reasoned that, unlike Section 330, Section 362(k) specifically and explicitly provides for the recovery of “costs and attorneys’ fees” in the measure of damages arising from a willful violation of the automatic stay, allowing for a departure from the American Rule. Moreover, nothing in the text of Section 362(k)(1) limits the scope of attorneys’ fees to solely ending a stay violation. Instead, Section 362(k)(1) speaks to full recovery of damages including fees and cost incurred from violating the stay. The Court noted that this result makes sense in the context of bankruptcy litigation where the lion’s share of damages from violations of the automatic stay are attorneys’ fees and the debtors are least able to afford them.

The Takeaway? While there are always exceptions to the rule, it is generally best to attempt to settle “willful” stay violations early on. The damages in what may seem like a simple matter, escalate quickly. If you choose to litigate and lose, you could be responsible for paying “actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees” to the debtor(s) for all the proceedings related to the stay violation dispute and, to add insult to injury, your own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Heather L. Ries is an attorney with the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Department of the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. Heather focuses her practice in matters related to bankruptcy, creditors’ rights, commercial workout and foreclosure disputes, and commercial litigation. You can contact Heather at 561-804-4419 or hries@foxrothschild.com.

Please see my post, over on Fox’s In the Weeds blog, regarding a recent Florida Court decision which found part of Florida’s medical marijuana law to be, likely, unconstitutional.

Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims. You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

About Our Firm

Fox Rothschild LLP is a national law firm with 800 attorneys practicing in 21 offices coast to coast. We’ve been serving clients for more than a century, and we’ve been climbing the ranks of the nation’s largest firms for many years, according to both The Am Law 100 and The National Law Journal.Read More...